Price is not a problem. I heard to the same over speakers "500 bucks is way over what people can afford" but that is not true at all. We spend much more money in digitals things like video cards, tvs, and specially smartphones. The problem is not the price people will buy anything if they feel they "need" it and it is worth the money.
This is the same thing people said to steve jobs "600 dollars is too much for a cellphone no one will buy it" but only now we can see who was right, right?
Except you can buy speakers for far less than 500 USD, hence why so many speaker are sold and it isn't a niche. And you can buy smartphones for far less than 600 USD (my current one cost me 30 USD, but many makes are available for ~100-150 USD), which explains why they finally pushed out feature phones as the dominant mobile phone in developed nations. And the iPhone wasn't a 600 USD lump sum to end consumers, it was X dollars + a 2 year subscription at Y per month.
Look at a common household item that is now ubiquitous. The Microwave. When first introduced to consumers they were extremely expensive and extremely niche. Had the price never come down significantly it would have remained extremely niche.
Price does matter. I've seen people pairing 650+ USD graphics cards with 150 USD monitors because they don't think it's worth spending more on a display. I've seen people spend 1000+ USD on a display and the use a 100-150 USD graphics card because they don't think it's worth it to spend more on a graphics card.
The higher the buy in price on a technology the lower its consumer penetration will be. If the price is too high and thus consumer penetration too low, then the product will remain a niche product. In the above example, Microwaves can now be had for under 100 USD, hence they are in almost every household. Graphics cards and LCD displays can be had for 150 USD or less, hence most people with a computer have one.
Going back in time a bit. Laser Discs had significantly higher quality than VHS, but also a laser disc players were significantly higher price than VHS players. It remained a niche product. OLED TVs are significantly better than LCD TVs but will remain niche until the price comes down drastically. Plasma TVs were also significantly better than LCDs but remained niche due to their price.
We have no idea what price point can push VR over the hump into gaining momentum into becoming a more mainstream prospect. 600+ USD likely isn't it. I don't think 400+ USD will do it either.
200 USD or less might get enough people to try it. At that point will there be enough content and enough compelling content that people will continue to ignore the inconvenience of having to strap something onto their head that basically isolates them from the world and the people around them?
We've seen with 3D non-interactive content that even something as lightweight as sunglasses combined with TVs that were the same price as non-3D TV was still to inconvenient to keep people interested in 3D media.
VR has a chance as it involves both interaction and much more believable 3D. But it also comes with a device that is far more inconvenient and precludes easily sharing the experience with those around you. All current devices also feature visual anomalies and inconsistencies that would likely hinder mass adoption.
For VR to have a chance, it doesn't just have to get cheaper, it also has to get better. It also needs to be easier to share the experience with those around you. And, IMO, it needs to not isolate you from your surroundings and the people around you. Unfortunately VR can't really do that last bit. So it has an uphill battle.
It's a novelty, a really nice and impressive novelty. But I don't think it has mass consumer appeal.
Regards,
SB
